Efrain Rios Montt & Mauricio Rodriguez Sanchez – International Justice Monitorhttps://www.ijmonitor.org
War crimes. Crimes against humanity. Genocide. The International Justice Monitor offers news and analysis of some of the most significant trials of our time.Mon, 19 Nov 2018 11:02:13 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8Court Finds Guatemalan Army Committed Genocide, but Acquits Military Intelligence Chiefhttps://www.ijmonitor.org/2018/09/court-finds-guatemalan-army-committed-genocide-but-acquits-military-intelligence-chief/
https://www.ijmonitor.org/2018/09/court-finds-guatemalan-army-committed-genocide-but-acquits-military-intelligence-chief/#respondFri, 28 Sep 2018 15:47:07 +0000http://www.ijmonitor.org/?p=12987In a tense and packed courtroom, Guatemalan High Risk Court “B” delivered its verdict on Wednesday evening in the retrial of José Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez for the crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity against the Maya Ixil population.

The court unanimously found that the State of Guatemala, and more specifically the Guatemalan army, committed genocide and crimes against humanity against the Maya Ixil population during the de facto government of Efraín Ríos Montt (1982-1983). The court determined that the evidence presented by the Attorney General’s Office and by the co-plaintiffs, the Association for Justice and Reconciliation and the Center for Human Rights Legal Action (CALDH), proved that the Guatemalan army devised a plan to exterminate the Maya Ixil. The army defined the ethnic group as coterminous with armed guerrilla organizations.

Evidence included testimony from some 100 survivors and families of victims, official documents, and expert witnesses. The atrocities included the destruction of at least 50 villages in the Ixil region, massacres, the widespread use of torture and sexual violence, especially against women, and search and destroy operations against the displaced population who, fleeing army violence, went to live in the mountains. The court affirmed that the structural racism and discrimination against the indigenous population that has characterized Guatemalan history was the underlying factor pushing the army’s counterinsurgency strategy towards acts of genocide.

However, the court divided over the criminal responsibility of Rodríguez Sánchez. In a split 2-1 ruling, the majority opinion of presiding judge María Eugenia Castellanos and Judge Jaime González Marín acquitted Rodríguez Sánchez of all charges, while Judge Sarah Yoc Yoc delivered an impassioned, dissenting opinion affirming his culpability for the atrocities. According to the majority opinion, the Attorney General’s Office failed to produce a document demonstrating that Rodríguez Sánchez gave the orders to commit these atrocities. In their view, Rodríguez Sánchez was merely an advisor to the General Staff of the Guatemalan Army, and did not have command responsibility.

Judge Yoc challenged that view in her dissenting opinion, finding that Rodríguez Sánchez was not just an advisor but the chief of military intelligence and a member of the General Staff of the Guatemalan Army. As such, he was responsible for collecting intelligence, through a vast network of informers, to determine who the enemy was. He was also responsible for the design, implementation and supervision of military plans and operations.

“Because of his position in the military hierarchy, he may not have given direct orders, but he collected, analyzed, and drew conclusions based on the information he collected and transmitted those conclusions to his superior officers, and they decided what actions to take,” she stated. “If he had not transmitted that information, much of it obtained illegally, we would not have so many dead…. I believe that the evidence demonstrates his culpability and that he should be sentenced to 30 years for each of the crimes (genocide and crimes against humanity).”

This is the second time Rodríguez Sánchez was acquitted of genocide and crimes against humanity against the Maya Ixil. In the 2013, High Risk Court “B” also found that the army had committed genocide against the Maya Ixil, and acquitted Rodríguez Sánchez while finding his co-plaintiff, Ríos Montt, guilty and sentencing him to 80 years in prison. However, following pressure from business and military elites challenging the notion that there was genocide in Guatemala, the Constitutional Court issued a controversial ruling that partially suspended the 2013 proceedings and vacated the judgment. After several failed attempts to initiate the retrial, it finally began in October 2017, with each of the accused prosecuted under separate proceedings. Ríos Montt died in April and the court closed the case against him.

Despite the court’s determination of the State of Guatemala was responsible for genocide and other atrocities, it did not order it to provide the victims with reparations of any kind. Instead, the court told the victims that they could pursue damages in civil court. Lawyers for the victims told IJ Monitor that they will study the full verdict once the court makes it available to determine whether to appeal the decision.

Reactions

Human rights organizations representing the victims lamented the court’s decision to acquit Rodríguez Sánchez. Edgar Pérez, of the Human Rights Law Firm and lawyer for the AJR, said that he believed the plaintiffs had provided ample evidence, including military documents, expert testimony about the role of military intelligence in the design, implementation, and supervision of military plans and operations, and witness testimony, to convict Rodríguez Sánchez. He said despite his disagreement with this aspect of the court’s ruling, he saw the ruling as a victory because it acknowledged what the victims have been saying for more than 30 years: that the army committed genocide.

Juan Francisco Soto, director of the CALDH, also a co-plaintiff to the case, told IJ Monitor that he was satisfied at the court’s findings that there was genocide against the Maya Ixil in 1982 and 1983. “We proved that there was genocide in 2013, and we proved it again in these proceedings,” he stated. “And if Ríos Montt were alive today, he would have been convicted of genocide for a second time.”

Business elites and conservative politicians sharply criticized the court’s determination of genocide. Álvaro Arzú, the son of former president of the same name (1996-2000) and currently president of the Guatemalan Congress, wrote on Twitter: “The only reason to continue saying that Guatemala is a genocidal country is so that the NGOs and their owners can continue receiving millions of dollars in reparations and grants. It is time to end this perverse business that has done so much damage to the country.”

IJ Monitor had the opportunity to meet with members of the AJR the day after the verdict was handed down. Several members expressed their frustration over the court’s split decision.

“In Guatemala today, acknowledging the genocide is permitted, but holding the senior military officials responsible for the genocide is not permitted,” said one AJR member. Another remarked that despite this, it was an important step in the struggle of the indigenous people of Guatemala for equality and an end to racial discrimination.

“We indigenous people have long been mistreated. But we are all born with the same humanity, we are all equal,” they said.

Pérez remarked that despite these limitations, the court’s acknowledgment of genocide marks a watershed. “This sentence will be studied 20 or 30 years from now as a decisive moment in Guatemalan history,” he said. “A national court acknowledged past atrocities, which the state and the army have long denied.”

Jo-Marie Burt is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Latin American Studies at George Mason University. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). Paulo Estrada is a human rights activist, archaeology student at San Carlos University, and civil party in the Military Diary case.

]]>https://www.ijmonitor.org/2018/09/court-finds-guatemalan-army-committed-genocide-but-acquits-military-intelligence-chief/feed/0The Guatemala Genocide Trial: Rodríguez Sánchez Delivers Final Statement Before Verdicthttps://www.ijmonitor.org/2018/09/the-guatemala-genocide-trial-rodriguez-sanchez-delivers-final-statement-before-verdict/
https://www.ijmonitor.org/2018/09/the-guatemala-genocide-trial-rodriguez-sanchez-delivers-final-statement-before-verdict/#respondWed, 26 Sep 2018 22:03:30 +0000http://www.ijmonitor.org/?p=12985On the morning of September 26, former chief of military intelligence Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez made his final statement to the court. Rodríguez Sánchez faces charges of genocide and crimes against humanity against the Maya Ixil population between March 23, 1982 and July 31, 1983 when, as head of military intelligence, he was a member of the general staff of the Guatemalan army. Efraín Ríos Montt, the de facto president at that time, appointed him.

Rodríguez Sánchez categorically denied his responsibility for genocide and crimes against humanity against the Maya Ixil population. “With my head held high, I can say that I am not responsible for, nor did I order anyone to do, the things that were allegedly done. With all certainty, before the creator of the universe, I am innocent.”

He affirmed that there is no official document showing that he gave a direct order to kill or massacre the Ixil people. He noted that he is charged with genocide of the Maya Ixil, when, in fact, the army intervened to “rescue the population and bring them development.”

“Yes, we acted to destroy the armed groups,” he added. “This was an armed conflict, after all; we weren’t throwing flowers at each other. The [guerrillas] attacked the state of Guatemala and the army acted in defense of the state, as mandated by the Constitution.”

Rodríguez Sánchez said he was merely an advisor to the military high command, and did not have command over troops nor could he issue orders.

“It was often stated that criminal responsibility is individual. But why do they want to hold me responsible for everything the army did or failed to do? I was not the army chief of staff, nor was I the minister of defense, nor was I the head of state; They are the general staff, and they are the ones who can give or change orders. An advisor cannot do that.” Later, he added, “I think they got the wrong guy.”

He made reference to the fact that he was acquitted, while his co-defendant Ríos Montt was found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity in 2013. “On May 10, 2013, the court acquitted me,” he said. “A long time passed before they named a new tribunal; with the same witnesses, the same evidence, the same experts, so we can’t expect a different verdict.”

Noting that he was captured in 2011, Rodríguez Sánchez said: “For seven years I have been deprived of my liberty. I have suffered humiliations. People yelled at me in the elevators, calling me genocidaire, calling me killer. The press has already condemned me. This hurts me and my family.” He also noted that his health has suffered as a result of the stress caused by these proceedings, and that the cost of hiring a defense lawyer has sapped his retirement savings. “I do not have the profile of a murderer,” he said. “This is hurtful to me.”

Finally, Rodríguez Sánchez challenged the validity of the expert testimonies, suggesting that they were paid to testify, which, he argued, undermines their credibility. “He who pays for the band gets to choose the songs played,” he said, adding: “It is very delicate to imagine that a foreigner can intervene to determine which experts testify and the content of their testimony. This is not right.” He also raised questions about the chain of custody of the human remains exhumed by forensic experts who testified in the trial.

The court convened the sentence hearing for this afternoon at 6:30 p.m.Jo-Marie Burt is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Latin American Studies at George Mason University. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). Paulo Estrada is a human rights activist, archaeology student at San Carlos University, and civil party in the Military Diary case.

]]>https://www.ijmonitor.org/2018/09/the-guatemala-genocide-trial-rodriguez-sanchez-delivers-final-statement-before-verdict/feed/0The Rodríguez Sánchez Genocide Trial: Verdict Expected September 26https://www.ijmonitor.org/2018/09/the-rodriguez-sanchez-genocide-trial-verdict-expected-september-26/
https://www.ijmonitor.org/2018/09/the-rodriguez-sanchez-genocide-trial-verdict-expected-september-26/#respondTue, 25 Sep 2018 14:26:26 +0000http://www.ijmonitor.org/?p=12978Five years after the first genocide trial in 2013, and more than 30 years after the events, the trial against Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity is wrapping up. Closing arguments have been heard and the final hearing, during which the defendant will have an opportunity to address the court, is scheduled for the morning of September 26. The trial court is expected to deliver its ruling later that day.

The Attorney General’s Office recapped the evidence that it says proves Rodríguez Sánchez’s criminal responsibility for genocide and crimes against humanity against the Maya Ixil population, and called on the court to impose the maximum sentence of 50 years for genocide and 30 years for crimes against humanity. A controversial Constitutional Court ruling partially suspended the 2013 proceedings, which vacated the judgment that acquitted Rodríguez Sánchez of similar charges, while finding co-accused Efraín Ríos Montt guilty.

As the day of the final sentence nears, tension over the possible outcome is rising. The high-profile grave crimes trial is concluding just as a constitutional crisis over the fate of the UN-backed International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) escalates. Maya Ixil authorities were present at the hearings when the Attorney General’s Office and the co-plaintiffs delivered their closing arguments on August 31 and September 7. The co-plaintiffs appeared in court wearing the traditional Maya Ixil ceremonial dress, which picked up on a theme widely circulated during the first genocide trial: “We are all Ixiles.”

In the meantime, several retired military officials and military commissioners were present in the courtroom when Rodríguez Sánchez’s lawyers presented their concluding arguments on September 12. At the end of the hearing, some of them engaged in verbally aggressive behavior towards the representatives of the victims.

Attorney General’s Office: Rodríguez Sánchez Knew About the Genocide and Failed to Stop It

Public prosecutor Erick de León began by stating that official documents prove that Rodríguez Sánchez was the chief of military intelligence of the General Staff of the Guatemalan Army between March 23, 1982 and July 31, 1983. The de facto president during this period, Efraín Ríos Montt, appointed him. Ríos Montt was also being prosecuted for a second time for the Maya Ixil genocide, but the case was closed following his death in April of this year.

As chief of military intelligence, De León said, Rodríguez Sánchez authored and led the implementation of military plans that resulted in massacres, massive forced displacement, sexual violence, and other atrocities against the Maya Ixil population. De León referenced military documents that gave military intelligence the power to operate throughout the country to identify subversive elements. As its chief, Rodríguez Sánchez had specific knowledge about detainees, the civil defense patrols, and military commissioners who formed part of the chain of information of military intelligence that went through him and up to the chief of the Army General Staff. He recalled the testimony of military expert Rodolfo Robles, who told the court that “military intelligence is the eyes and ears of the army; without military intelligence, the army has no reference points.”

According to De León, Rodríguez Sánchez was responsible for specifying who the “internal enemy” was in the context of the counterinsurgency war and devising plans to counteract these groups. He stated that various military documents, particularly the Victoria 82 Campaign Plan and the Sofía Operations Plan, prove that Rodríguez Sánchez had identified virtually the entire Maya Ixil population as guerrilla collaborators and therefore as an “internal enemy” that had to be “annihilated.” De León said that during the 17 months that Rodríguez Sánchez was head of military intelligence, at least 90 villages in the Ixil region were partially or completely destroyed.

De León argued further that the military persecuted the Maya Ixil population that had fled into the mountains to escape military attacks. According to De León, the Firmeza 83 Campaign Plan classified the displaced population as an enemy, thereby justifying their persecution through bombing campaigns, destruction of their crops, and inducing famine. He said these were not guerrilla fighters, but noncombatant civilians, including women, children, and the elderly. De León argued that the evidence demonstrates that the military had studied the displaced population, identified it as the enemy, and attacked it, revealing the intention to annihilate the group in whole or in part.

Rodríguez Sánchez knew about and could have stopped the genocide against the Maya Ixil, said De León, but he did not do so.

Co-plaintiffs: Racism and Discrimination Are the Roots of the Genocide

On September 7, the attorneys for the complainants, Edgar Pérez Archila of the Human Rights Law Firm, who represents the surviving victims of the Association of Justice and Reconciliation (AJR), and Héctor Reyes Chiquin, staff attorney at the Center for Human Rights Legal Action (CALDH), gave their closing arguments. Pérez, Reyes, and their co-counsel wore the ceremonial dress of the Maya Ixil at the request of their clients.

Pérez reiterated De León’s argument that genocide was committed in Guatemala against the Mayan Ixil people, emphasizing the historic racism and discrimination against the indigenous people of Guatemala. He made specific reference to the testimony of Marta Elena Casaús, author of the book Lineage and Racism in Guatemala. “Racism and discrimination are the roots of the genocide in Guatemala, as Marta Casaús explained in her testimony,” he said. He also recalled the testimony of military expert Héctor Rosada Granados, who told the court that the military saw the Ixil as “problematic.” “When the land-owning ladinos saw the Ixiles begin to organize,” he said, “they told the army that they were insurgents.”

Pérez highlighted witness testimonies about the many ways the military attempted to destroy the Ixil people, through massacres, forced displacement, torture, sexual violence, and enslavement. The army sought to destroy the Maya Ixil population not only by killing them, said Pérez, but by destroying their collective way of life. The Maya Ixil “were persecuted, their homes and their corn fields were destroyed, they had no food or medicine, they were bombed… People died of hunger, from bullets, and from fear. Babies died because their mothers had to cover their mouths [so they would not cry]…. Others died due to stomach infections, lack of medical attention, or from the cold….” Rodríguez Sánchez was responsible for the orders that resulted in these attacks, said Pérez, and was privy to detailed intelligence reports on their implementation.

Héctor Reyes of CALDH presented a brief timeline of the genocide case, which started with the first complaint against the military high command for genocide in five distinct regions in 2000. The case failed to advance. In 2007, CALDH pursued new tactics, suing the government to access several declassified military documents, including Firmeza 83 and Plan Sofía. This led the organization to refine its analysis and focus solely on the Maya Ixil genocide. The case was transferred to a high risk court in 2011, and eventually, the trial opened in March 2013 against Ríos Montt and Rodríguez Sánchez. After the Constitutional Court partially suspended the proceedings, which vacated the 2013 ruling, the retrial faced repeated delays. Ríos Montt died in the midst of his second trial.

For Reyes, the army engaged in criminal acts that constitute the crime of genocide, which were possible because of the actions and omissions of Rodríguez Sánchez. Reyes joined Pérez and the Attorney General’s office in asking the court to find Rodríguez Sánchez guilty and sentence him to 50 years in prison for genocide and 30 years in prison for crimes against humanity.

The Defense: Rodríguez Sánchez is Not Guilty

Rodríguez Sánchez’s defense lawyers delivered their concluding arguments on September 12. Their core arguments centered on the claim that Rodríguez Sánchez did not have command over the army, and that the case presented by the Attorney General’s Office lacked consistency and did not prove his responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense also claimed that the cases of sexual violence were isolated cases, not part of a systematic pattern of abuse, and that they were the responsibility of the troops, not commanding officers. They also challenged the authenticity of official documents, saying that they are just “copies,” and referred to the reports of the Commission for Historical Clarification and the Recovery of Historical Memory project (REHMI) as biased and overly influenced by foreigners.

The defense also asserted that the defendant was not the official responsible for characterizing the enemy as “insurgents.” That was the responsibility of the G5 Civil Affairs Officer, the defense argued. According to the defense, yet another member of the Army General Staff, the G3 Operations Officer, was responsible for any “excesses” that occurred in the Ixil region.

The defense concluded by praising Rodríguez Sánchez as a man of integrity and called upon the court to find him not guilty on all counts.

Final Remarks of the Victims’ Organizations

The hearing ended with brief remarks from representatives of AJR and CALDH. Edwin Canil, president of AJR, told the court that members of the organization, which is dedicated to achieving justice for civilian victims of the war, “have suffered threats, defamation, intimidation and harassment by associates of the accused.” He asked the court to order measures for victim and witness protection, and also measures to guarantee the non-repetition of atrocities.

Francisco Soto, the executive director of CALDH, told the court that victims’ demands for justice do not lead to societal polarization, but that the accused seize on this claim in order to delegitimize the victims and the court itself.

Tension at the End of the Hearing

Several former military officials attended the hearing to show support for Rodríguez Sánchez. They included members of the Guatemalan Association of Military Veterans (AVEMILGUA) and former military commissioners, as well as individuals from the Ixil region.

At the end of the hearing, several of the commissioners and some of the Ixil civilians approached Edwin Canil of AJR, grabbing him by the arm and insulting him. At the same time, retired colonel and member of AVEMILGUA Marco Antonio Orozco Cifuentes confronted Francisco Soto, saying “the money is about to run out.”

Rodríguez Sánchez will have an opportunity to address the court on September 26 at 8:30 AM. The verdict is expected later on Wednesday.

Jo-Marie Burt is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Latin American Studies at George Mason University. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). Paulo Estrada is a human rights activist, archaeology student at San Carlos University, and civil party in the Military Diary case.

]]>https://www.ijmonitor.org/2018/09/the-rodriguez-sanchez-genocide-trial-verdict-expected-september-26/feed/0The Rodríguez Sánchez Genocide Retrial: Highlights of the Proceedingshttps://www.ijmonitor.org/2018/08/the-rodriguez-sanchez-genocide-retrial-part-i-highlights-of-the-proceedings/
https://www.ijmonitor.org/2018/08/the-rodriguez-sanchez-genocide-retrial-part-i-highlights-of-the-proceedings/#respondMon, 13 Aug 2018 17:57:46 +0000http://www.ijmonitor.org/?p=12903The trial of Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity is nearing its conclusion. Rodríguez Sánchez served as chief of military intelligence under former dictator Efraín Ríos Montt. The two were tried together in 2013; Rodríguez Sánchez was acquitted and Ríos Montt was convicted, but a controversial, and some say illegal, Constitutional Court decision resulted in the verdict being vacated. After many false starts and delays, a retrial finally started in October 2017. While the case against Ríos Montt was closed following his death this past April, the retrial of Rodríguez Sánchez is in its final stages, with a verdict possible at the end of August or September. This post provides a brief background into the complex judicial process, along with some highlights of the Rodríguez Sánchez trial to date.

Background

Ríos Montt came to power in a military coup d’état on March 23, 1982 and was deposed 17 months later, on August 7, 1983, in a military coup orchestrated by his Minister of Defense, Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores. Rodríguez Sánchez served as Director of Military Intelligence (G-2) under Rios Montt.

The short 17 months in which Ríos Montt ruled Guatemala were the most brutal of the conflict. Human rights organizations estimate that 10,000 people were killed in the first three months of his government alone. During the first eight months of his government, there were 19 massacres each month, and more than 400 indigenous communities were destroyed. According to the Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH), 83 percent of the victims of the conflict were indigenous. Based on these and other indicators, the CEH determined that the counterinsurgency strategy deployed during the Ríos Montt years constituted “acts of genocide” against the indigenous population in five regions of the country.

The 2013 trial against Ríos Montt and Rodríguéz Sánchez marked the first time senior military officials faced trial for grave human rights violations committed during the conflict. With the Constitutional Court decision of May 20, 2013 that resulted in the vacating of the conviction of Ríos Montt and the acquittal of Rodríguez Sánchez, the courts determined that the case would be retried. Ríos Montt was freed from prison and returned to house arrest; Rodríguez Sánchez, who had been freed, was returned to the military hospital.

Finally in October 2017, the retrial began again. The court overseeing the proceedings—High Risk Court “B,” composed of presiding judge María Eugenia Castellanos Cruz and judges Sara Gricelda Yoc Yoc and Jaime Delmar González Marín—determined that it would only hear the case one day a week. Closed-door proceedings against Ríos Montt were held on Friday mornings, followed by the public proceedings against Rodríguez Sánchez in the afternoons. After the death of Ríos Montt in April, the court scheduled day-long hearings for Rodríguez Sánchez every Friday.

The Trial Against Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez

The testimony of several survivor-witnesses who testified in the hearings held during March and April 2016 were incorporated into the current proceedings. Survivor testimonies continued in October 2017, as previously reported by International Justice Monitor. A total of 107 witnesses have testified during the retrial, according to Edwin Canil, president of the Association for Justice and Reconciliation (AJR), an association of survivors and families of victims from five regions of the country. Canil told IJ Monitor that virtually all of the survivor-witnesses who testified in 2013 returned to testify in the retrial proceedings, except five witnesses who have passed away and one who declined to testify again.

In February 2018, the court convened hearings over the course of three days in Nebaj, Quiche, the heart of the Ixil region, so that witnesses who had difficulty traveling to the capital city due to illness or other incapacity could testify. In a show of solidarity with the survivors and families of the victims, human rights organizations accompanying the victims organized photography exhibits of the 2013 trial and exhumations, public events, and commemorative ceremonies.

Also present were several former military commissioners and retired military officials, members of the Association of Military Veterans of Guatemala (Avemilgua). In menacing tones, they shouted into microphones connected to loudspeakers, justifying the massacres, attacking the witnesses, and vociferously denying that the Ríos Montt government was responsible for genocide. At times they were so loud that it was difficult to hear the testimony of the victims inside the makeshift courtroom set up near the plaza. The Avemilgua members also sought to intimidate those present at the proceedings, taking photographs with their cell phones and cameras. The National Police were called in to avoid any confrontation.

The court has heard the testimony of several expert witnesses, the majority of whom participated in the first genocide trial. Peruvian retired army general Rodolfo Robles discussed the role of military intelligence in characterizing the enemy, and noted that in the military Plan Victoria, the Maya Ixil population is characterized as the “internal enemy.” Forensic anthropologist and president of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala (FAFG), Fredy Peccerelli, also testified about the work conducted by his organization in the Ixil area. Statistician Patrick Ball presented the statistical research he carried out for the Commission on Historical Clarification, which demonstrated that indigenous people were eight times more likely to be killed than non-indigenous people during 1982 and 1983. Geographer Liz Oglesby discussed her research on forced displacement in the Ixil region during the Ríos Montt-Rodríguez Sánchez years. Historian Marta Elena Casaús discussed her research on racism and genocide.

A series of documents, including military documents, the report of the Historical Clarification Commission, and others, have also been presented as evidence. Erick de León, lead prosecutor for the Attorney General’s Office, has also presented new evidence and new witnesses in the retrial proceedings, including Jennifer Schirmer, author of The Guatemalan Military Project: A Violence Called Democracy, and Allan Nairn, who famously interviewed ex-president Otto Pérez Molina while he was a commander in Nebaj in 1982. This will be examined further in a future post.

The defense has offered only a handful of witnesses. On June 22, defense counsel called on José Luis Quilo Ayuso to testify. He was a special forces Kaibil soldier, trained in counterinsurgency operations, expert in demolitions and psychological operations, and a founder and current president of Avemilgua. Quilo Ayuso served as vice minister of defense, commander of military zones, and was a member of the Army General Staff. He is also a founding member of the ruling party, National Convergence Front (FCN). His expert testimony focused on the chain of command in the Guatemalan army and the functions of the members of the Army General Staff. Quilo Ayuso also testified for the defense in the 2013 genocide proceedings; curiously, the trial court relied on his testimony in its determination that Rios Montt, as de facto head of state, “knew about all [the crimes] that were occurring and did not stop them despite having the power to do so.”

On July 13, the defense called on congressional deputy Manuel Conde Orellana to testify. Conde Orellana belongs to the National Action Party (PAN) of Fernando Linares Beltranena; Linares Beltranena is the force behind the congressional bill to modify the National Reconciliation Law of 1996 to allow amnesty provisions for genocide and other international crimes. Conde Orellana was the president of the government commission in charge of negotiating the peace accords between 1991 and 1993. He was the secretary general of President Jorge Serrano Elías, infamous for his failed “self-coup” attempt in 1993, and he has been an advisor to a number of Latin American presidents, include Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, Arnoldo Alemán of Nicaragua, and Alfredo Cristiani of El Salvador. He testified that his father and grandfather were killed by members of the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG). Further, he denied that the internal armed conflict was directed against a specific ethnic or religious group, and asserted that the reports of the Historical Clarification Commission and the Recovery of Historical Memory (REHMI) were biased and inaccurate.

Growing Intimidation

There have been several incidents during the proceedings that could be characterized as intimidation. For example, during the hearing in which Fredy Peccerelli testified, Rodríguez Sánchez’s defense attorney repeatedly interrupted the expert witness, which the court rebuked. During a recess, in the hallway outside the courtroom, the defendant approached Prosecutor De León and some of the civil party lawyers in an intimidating manner, violating their personal space and hurling insults and pejorative comments against human rights organizations. When the hearing resumed, Prosecutor De León denounced this to the court. Civil party lawyer Edgar Pérez told the court that the defendant said: “If I could call you sons of bitches, I would do so.” In allusion to the expert report presented by the FAFG, he also stated that he “would like to create a human rights NGO, because they bring in the money.” The presiding judge called on the accused to refrain from such behavior. In response, his lawyer claimed that she and the defendant were harassed by the press.

On several occasions, Rodríguez Sánchez has approached the civil party lawyers to make a comment about the witnesses. At the hearing on Friday, April 13, the accused approached one of the Mayan women who was with the civil party lawyers, questioning her about the origin of the indigenous dress she was wearing. He also approached a journalist, asking why she did not say goodbye to him at the end of the hearing.

Particularly since the death of Ríos Montt, which resulted in an acceleration of the Rodríguez Sánchez proceedings, the climate of intimidation has increased in the courtroom. Rodríguez Sánchez’s defense counsel has been more aggressive in her cross-examination of witnesses and experts called by the plaintiffs, and has made comments aimed at discrediting the qualifications of the witnesses, earning her several rebukes from the court.

Retired military officials belonging to AVEMILGUA also became more frequent visitors of the courtroom. During the hearing on May 25, when expert witness Marta Elena Casaús was testifying, Ricardo Méndez Ruiz, president of the Foundation against Terrorism, and Karen Ness, of the Pro-Patriot League, made an appearance the hearing. Ness has interrupted the hearings on several occasions, shouting that the courts are biased. At one point, Méndez Ruiz walked over to the defense lawyer in the midst of her cross-examination to correct her, leading the judge to rebuke Méndez Ruiz and informing him and other members of the public that if they did not comply with the rules of the court, they would be removed from the courtroom.

During some of these hearings, a group of individuals dressed as Maya Ixil came to observe the proceedings, but proceeded to confront members of the Maya Ixil connected to the case. The civil party lawyers denounced this aggression before the court, noting that some of those present were not Ixiles and were known in the Ixil region for their aggressive behavior. Some of them, they said, are former military commissioners.

It is expected there will be only one or two more hearings in which evidence is presented by the parties, after which the court will hear closing arguments and deliver its verdict.

Jo-Marie Burt is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Latin American Studies at George Mason University. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). Paulo Estrada is a human rights activist, archaeology student at San Carlos University, and civil party in the Military Diary case.

Guatemalan law has special provisions for individuals who, like the retired general, were mentally competent at the time of the alleged crimes but currently lack the mental capacity to face a trial. Thus, the court heard the case against Ríos Montt, who was not present and was represented only by his lawyers, behind closed doors. The same tribunal heard the case against Rodríguez Sánchez in the afternoon in a public hearing.

Recap of the Genocide Trial to Date

Ríos Montt and Rodríguez Sánchez face charges of genocide and crimes against humanity for the killing of 1,771 indigenous Maya Ixil, the displacement of 29,000 individuals, and rape and torture committed in the context of 15 documented massacres. Nearly half of all the reported violations that took place during Guatemala’s bloody 36-year war occurred in 1982, the year in which Ríos Montt came to power. According to the UN-sponsored Commission for Historical Clarification, eight out of ten victims were indigenous Guatemalans.

Ríos Montt was convicted and Rodríguez Sánchez acquitted in a 2013 trial. However, in a divided and highly controversial ruling that it handed down days after the verdict, the Constitutional Court partially suspended the proceedings, citing a procedural technicality that vacated the verdict. Victims’ lawyers accuse the magistrates who voted in favor of this verdict of prevarication (breach of duty) and have called for a special prosecutor to investigate.

Efforts to restart the genocide trial have faltered repeatedly. The first attempt, in January 2015—fully a year and a half after the Constitutional Court vacated the original verdict—was aborted after the defense successfully recused presiding Judge Jeannette Valdés, who had written her thesis about the concept of genocide. Two additional attempts were aborted before they had even started. The most recent attempt was on March 16, 2016, when the High Risk Court “B” launched closed-door proceedings against both of the accused.

After approximately a dozen hearings, these proceedings were suspended after the First Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a protective measure filed by the civil parties, alleging that the victims had the right to hear the case against Rodríguez Sánchez in a public trial. The court ruled that the proceedings violated the right of Rodríguez Sánchez to a public trial, while also violating Ríos Montt’s right to a private trial. The Constitutional Court upheld this ruling, establishing that the proceedings violated the due process rights of the accused and that the two defendants should be tried separately.

Yet, despite that determination, the Constitutional Court also ordered the trial court to resume the proceedings where the case left off when it was suspended in May 2016. Some 25 witnesses had presented their testimony over the course of a dozen or so hearings. The civil-party plaintiffs have expressed concerns that this could be construed as a due process violation and could result in a suspension of the proceedings or provide grounds for appeal by the defendants if the court finds one or both guilty.

The Ríos Montt Retrial

As International Justice Monitor reported, Ríos Montt was not present in the courtroom on the morning of October 13. Under the special provisions, he is not required to be present, and if found guilty, he would not face prison time. The court has designated his children, Zury Ríos and Enrique Ríos, as his legal representatives, but they have delegated legal representation to defense lawyers Luis Rosales, Jaime Hernández Marroquín, and Linda Juárez. The hearing was held in private. The press and public were not allowed in the courtroom.

The proceedings began with the defense lawyers filing a motion against the tribunal, asserting that it is not competent to hear this case because the High Risk Tribunals did not exist at the time of the alleged crimes. The court rejected this out of hand, after which the defense lawyers called upon the judges to recuse themselves. The court rejected this motion as well. The defense lawyers then filed a recusal motion, based on a criminal complaint filed by Rosales and Hernández in August 2015, accusing the magistrates of abuse of authority, violations of the constitution, and breach of duty. The court rejected all of these motions, stating that they were delay tactics. Based on Article 201 of the Judicial Organism Law, which establishes that a lawyer is prohibited from participation in a proceeding in which the lawyer’s interventions could be the cause of a judge’s recusal, the court ordered Rosales and Hernández to abandon the courtroom. This left Juárez as the sole lawyer representing Ríos Montt.

Francisco García Gudiel, Ríos Montt’s lawyer in the 2013 genocide trial, pursued a similar strategy, seeking to recuse presiding Judge Yassmín Barrios. Barrios ordered Gudiel’s expulsion from the courtroom after his strident attacks against her. In declarations to the press following Friday’s hearing, Hernández stated that his expulsion was a violation of Ríos Montt’s right to defense and of due process.

The Rodríguez Sánchez Retrial

In the afternoon session, the proceedings advanced without incident. The proceedings are not taking place in the large room of the Supreme Court building where the 2013 trial took place, but in the normal chambers of High Risk Tribunal “B.” Some 60 people attended, including representatives of victim associations and Human Rights Ombudsman Jordán Rodas, who said his role in observing the proceedings was “to ensure that the due process rights of all the parties are respected.”

Rodríguez Sánchez’s lawyers did not question the competence of the tribunal. Erick de León, a public prosecutor representing the Attorney General’s Office, introduced Plan Victoria 82 as evidence and asked to read sections of it aloud. Rodríguez Sánchez’s lawyer asked to read the entire document aloud, which the court rejected, stating that this would be too tedious and time-consuming given its length. However, the court offered the defense the opportunity to read aloud any sections they deemed pertinent.

De León proceeded to read several extracts of Plan Victoria 82. Prosecutors may be relying on the military document to demonstrate the intentionality of actions carried out in the Ixil region. Along with other key military operational plans, including Plan Firmeza 83, and Plan de Operaciones Sofía, Plan Victoria 82 outlines the military’s counter-insurgency campaign against indigenous communities it perceived to be the social base of the guerrilla movement.

According to National Security Archive analyst Kate Doyle, who has extensively studied the Guatemalan military documents as well as official U.S. government declassified documents, Plan Victoria 82 makes clear that “the armed forces regarded the indigenous communities as fatally intertwined with the insurgency. In order to eradicate the base, Victoria 82 promoted a scorched-earth strategy, ordering the destruction of homes, local crops, animals, and other potential sources of guerrilla supplies.” For a full analysis, see The Final Battle: Ríos Montt’s Counterinsurgency Campaign.

The final intervention was by Santiago Choc, a lawyer at the Human Rights Law Firm led by renowned human rights attorney Edgar Pérez. Choc read a segment of Plan Victoria 82 that established that after passing a determined amount of time in the field, soldiers had the right to spend time in a “recreation zone” where they could have “contact with the feminine sex.”

After the short two-hour session, the court adjourned. The next hearing for both trials is scheduled for October 27.

Jo-Marie Burt is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Latin American Studies at George Mason University. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). Paulo Estrada is a human rights activist, archaeology student at San Carlos University, and civil party in the Military Diary case.

]]>https://www.ijmonitor.org/2017/10/the-guatemala-genocide-trial-resumes/feed/0Eighteen Months After Initial Conviction, Historic Guatemalan Genocide Trial Reopens but is Ultimately Suspendedhttps://www.ijmonitor.org/2015/01/eighteen-months-after-initial-conviction-historic-guatemalan-genocide-trial-reopens-but-is-ultimately-suspended/
https://www.ijmonitor.org/2015/01/eighteen-months-after-initial-conviction-historic-guatemalan-genocide-trial-reopens-but-is-ultimately-suspended/#commentsTue, 06 Jan 2015 14:40:28 +0000http://www.ijmonitor.org/?p=9369On Monday, January 5, a small Guatemala City courtroom was packed to the brim for the anticipated retrial of former head of State Efrain Rios Montt and his then head of military intelligence, Mauricio Rodriguez Sanchez. Both are charged with genocide and crimes against humanity for massacres committed in 1982 and 1983 when General Rios Montt ruled with an iron fist.

Prosecutors allege that Rios Montt was responsible for the killing of 1,771 indigenous Mayans, the displacement of 29,000, and the rape and torture of others during 15 massacres. Nearly half of all reported violations during the bloody 36-year war occurred in 1982, the year in which Rios Montt came to power. In the Ixil region, between 70 and 90 percent of the communities were wiped out around this period.

Rios Montt was convicted and Rodriguez Sanchez acquitted in a 2013 trial. However, in a divided ruling days after the verdict, the constitutional court annulled the judgment on a procedural technicality.

The defense lodged numerous challenges to any new trial, and yesterday morning, neither the case file nor Rios Montt were present in the courtroom, foreshadowing the challenges to come. By the afternoon, Rios Montt was present — brought in by ambulance on a gurney, by court order — but a defense challenge led to the recusal of one of the three presiding judges, suspending the process for an undefined period of time.

The Missing Judicial Case File

The tense political climate around the genocide trial in Guatemala and the outcome of the first trial generated significant skepticism that any new trial would take place at all. Yet victims came from far, many unable to enter the courtroom due to lack of space. Local and international media were present in large numbers.

As the court opened at 8:30 AM, Rios Montt was notably absent. Rios Montt’s lawyer Jaime Hernandez sat with his co-defendant Mauricio Rodriguez Sanchez and Rodriguez Sanchez’ lawyers Cesar Calderon and Francisco Palomo. In the early hours of the morning, Rios Montt’s defense attorneys asserted that Rios Montt was too ill to attend the trial.

At the outset, the three judges presiding over this new trial from High Risk Court B — Irma Jeannette Valdez, Sara Yoc Yoc, and Maria Eugenia Castellanos — announced that they did not have the case file, a necessary prerequisite to the initiation of the trial, and delayed the trial until 11 AM to attain the case file. The Supreme Court’s amparo chamber, which deals with constitutional challenges, had retained the original judicial file from a then-unresolved challenge brought by Rios Montt’s attorneys.

The civil parties also requested a larger courtroom but were told that none was available.

The Absent General

At 11 AM, reassembled and now with access to the case file, the tribunal turned to the absence of Rios Montt. His attorneys presented a medical certificate from his personal doctor excusing him for medical reasons, stating that he would suffer “irreversible paralysis in his legs” if he left his home. They asserted that forcing Rios Montt to attend the trial would violate his right to health. A December 3 evaluation by the national forensic authority, INACIF, conducted after Rios Montt refused to attend a pre-trial hearing, found him fit to stand trial. The court thus did not accept Rios Montt’s medical excuse, temporarily suspended the hearing, and ordered the national police to ensure Rios Montt’s presence in the courtroom by 1 PM, with his personal doctor if necessary. The court threatened sanctions if he continued to refuse to attend, including the revocation of his house arrest and requiring his detention during the trial.

Within the hour, the 88-year-old former general arrived at the courtroom by ambulance on a gurney, his face covered and his daughter, former congresswoman Zury Rios, by his side. Some cried out that this was political theater, and the media swarmed the general.

The Judge’s Recusal

The court next turned to Rios Montt’s challenge of the tribunal president, Judge Valdez, with allegations of bias. On December 30, the last working day before the trial, defense attorneys sought Judge Valdez’ recusal on the ground that her 2004 academic thesis — Criteria to Improve the Application of the Crime of Genocide — constituted a pre-formed opinion on the case. According to the defense, in the thesis, Judge Valdez accepted that there had been a genocide in Guatemala and outlined concepts of command responsibility.

The public prosecutor and civil parties denied that her thesis constituted a reason for her to excuse herself and qualified the defense action as nothing more than an abusive delaying tactic, brought 14 months after the tribunal was constituted and the judges were known, on the eve of the trial’s start.

Rodriguez Sanchez’ lawyer did not contest Judge Valdez’ sitting on the tribunal, asserting that the former head of military intelligence merely wants to resolve this case but accepted as legitimate Rios Montt’s concerns.

Judge Valdez, who has served as a judge on numerous high-profile and complex cases over the past 22 years, asserted that she had no particular interest, or bias, in hearing the case and that her work was purely academic and did not concern whether the defendant was responsible for the crimes alleged. She also asserted that the timing of the challenge indicated the defendant’s desire to impede the progress of the trial.

After an extended deliberation, the court decided, in a majority decision, that Judge Valdez should excuse herself for reasons of partiality. Judges Yoc and Castellanos affirmed that Judge Valdez had already stated a position on an important question at issue in the trial and that Rios Montt had reason to doubt her impartiality. They thus suspended, again, the reopening of the trial, this time for an indefinite period.

What Comes Next?

In theory, an appellate court could designate a new judge to complete the three-judge panel in the coming days. However, it took months for this panel to be constituted because scores of appellate court judges refused to intervene. Moreover, Rios Montt has challenged numerous judges already, and there are a limited number of judges in the high-risk courts tasked to decide complex cases. The issue of Judge Valdez’ recusal may also be decided by a higher court.

An appellate court also still needs to decide whether or not a 1986 amnesty decree should prevent the prosecution of Rios Montt. On December 23, the appellate court notified the parties that it would resolve this issue within five days, but the defense challenge to one of the judges has postponed a final decision. In response to a different challenge, the amparo chamber yesterday confirmed the competence of the high risk court before the day’s hearing ended.

The prospect of a new trial already seems poised to reignite some of the concerns surrounding the prior process. During the hearing, civil parties described the new process as unnecessary — a result of an improper ruling by the constitutional court, which they are challenging before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

President Otto Perez Molina, a former military leader himself, called for an end to “indirect pressure” related to the trial, specifically contesting the presence in the courtroom of foreign diplomats. In December, the U.S. government pronounced that its continued support for Guatemala would be conditioned on the advancement of judicial processes related to the crimes committed during the country’s armed conflict, and the country’s ceasing to use military forces for citizen security. The Foundation Against Terrorism, led by Ricardo Mendez Ruiz, son of Rios Montt’s interior minister, yesterday published a full-page ad describing as “abusive” the U.S. government’s support for a conclusion of the genocide trial.

During Monday’s trial, the public prosecutor was represented by lawyers Orlando Lopez, Hilda Pineda, and Eric De Leon and was accompanied by the civil parties representing the victims — the Association for Justice and Reconciliation (AJR), represented by lawyers Edgar Perez and Santiago Choc, and the Center for Legal Action in Human Rights (CALDH), represented by its director, Juan Francisco Soto, and lawyers Hector Reyes and Francisco Villar.

After the final suspension of the day, the defendants left the courtroom quickly. The victims chanted “Justice for Genocide” as they slowly made their way out. Survivors outside the courtroom expressed a resignation; they rested on the previously issued verdict but committed to continue to be present.

For background on the 2013 trial and a translation of key sections of the judgment, see Judging a Dictator, available here

]]>https://www.ijmonitor.org/2015/01/eighteen-months-after-initial-conviction-historic-guatemalan-genocide-trial-reopens-but-is-ultimately-suspended/feed/4Guatemalan Court Ruling on Attorney General’s Term Undermines Rule of Lawhttps://www.ijmonitor.org/2014/02/guatemalan-court-ruling-on-attorney-generals-term-undermines-rule-of-law/
https://www.ijmonitor.org/2014/02/guatemalan-court-ruling-on-attorney-generals-term-undermines-rule-of-law/#commentsFri, 07 Feb 2014 15:55:35 +0000http://www.ijmonitor.org/?p=8135NEW YORK—A ruling by Guatemala’s constitutional court that cuts short the term of the country’s attorney general jeopardizes the country’s decades-long transition to constitutional democracy, the Open Society Justice Initiative said today.

Claudia Paz y Paz was appointed attorney general in December 2010 for a full period of four years, but the court’s decision calls for her term to end this May. Guatemala’s constitution (Article 251) states that the attorney general’s term will last for four years and that she can only be removed from office by the president for “duly established cause.”

The constitutional court decision relied on 20-year-old transitional provisions of the country’s constitution, and was issued following a challenge lodged by a Guatemalan businessman. In its brief decision, the constitutional court did not elaborate why these provisions are relevant here, beyond that initial transition period.

Last year, two internal legal opinions solicited by the Presidency of the Supreme Court on this question found clearly that the attorney general’s term goes through to December.

“We are deeply troubled by this ruling. It stands as a direct affront to the rule of law,” said James A. Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative. “The independence of the attorney general must be preserved in order to make any progress in the fight against impunity in Guatemala and elsewhere.”

In a report issued last week in Guatemala [download PDF], the Inter-American Commission highlighted that “for effective access to justice to be guaranteed, then justice operators must be able to discharge their functions independently.” Prosecutors must be able to perform autonomously and without undue interference or fear of retaliation for their actions. International law further requires that judicial decisions be well-founded.

If confirmed as final, the constitutional court’s decision will lead to termination seven months early of the term of a strong, independent attorney general who has been a force for justice in Guatemala. During her term, Paz y Paz successfully brought about reforms of the court system that have strengthened its ability to deal with corruption and major crimes, including last year’s prosecution for genocide of the country’s former military ruler, Efrain Rios Montt.

The ruling also threatens the independence of the office of the attorney general and suggests that reform efforts may be met with retaliation.

]]>https://www.ijmonitor.org/2014/02/guatemalan-court-ruling-on-attorney-generals-term-undermines-rule-of-law/feed/2Guatemala’s Constitutional Court Calls for Pioneering Attorney General to Step Down Earlyhttps://www.ijmonitor.org/2014/02/guatemalas-constitutional-court-calls-for-pioneering-attorney-general-to-step-down-early/
Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:52:20 +0000http://www.ijmonitor.org/?p=8133In Guatemala yesterday, the Constitutional Court ruled that the country’s top lawyer must step down earlier than planned. Attorney General Claudia Paz y Paz is a champion reformer, and has been a bright light in the violence-plagued country notorious for impunity.

The question about the date at which Paz y Paz’ term appropriately ends has been contentious in Guatemala. She has made notable reforms, strengthening the Public Ministry to enhance successful prosecutions, including for violent crime, narco-trafficking, corruption and human rights violations. In doing so, she has also created enemies, even more so after the prosecutor’s short-lived success in convicting former military head of state José Efraín Ríos Montt for genocide and crimes against humanity last year.

The Constitutional Court’s decision shifts the landscape markedly. It was unanimous, and is apparently not subject to appeal, but only “clarification” or “amplification.” Nonetheless, in a statement to EFE, Paz y Paz has announced her intention to file a legal challenge. In doing so, she asserted: “Altering the constitutional terms of officials who must be autonomous in the exercise of their office weakens the rule of law.”

The court’s decision yesterday provisionally endorsed a constitutional challenge earlier filed by Ricardo Sagastume, a prominent Guatemalan businessman seeking to bring the current attorney general’s term to an end in May, seven months before the completion of what is constitutionally obliged to be a four-year term. (An initial challenge filed by Sagustame was rejected, but he filed a separate challenge which resulted in yesterday’s decision.)

Guatemala’s Constitution (Article 251) states that the attorney general’s term will last for four years and that she can only be removed from office by the president for “duly established cause.” However, the constitutional court relied partly on “transitional” provisions of the constitution (conditional articles 24 and 25) which identified as May the date at which the attorney general would assume his position following 1993 constitutional reforms. The constitutional court decision does not elaborate why these provisions are relevant here, beyond that initial transition period.

The term issue has arisen because Paz y Paz was appointed to head the Public Ministry in December 2010, after the constitutional court disqualified the lawyer previously appointed to the position in May of that year. Paz y Paz has argued that she was appointed in December 2010 for a full period of four years, and her term should thus appropriately end in December 2014.

In its three-page decision, the court “determine[d] that the process for selecting and designating the Attorney General of the Republic and head of the Public Ministry should begin immediately, with the aim that the naming [of the next Attorney General] by the President be done … in May.” It called on Congress to act to initiate the process to establish a nominating commission without delay.

In Guatemala, the attorney general is appointed through a nominating commission which shortlists six potential candidates to pass on to the president for an eventual final decision which must then be endorsed by the legislature. If her term concludes in December, a nominating commission would convene only in August.

The end date of Paz y Paz’s term has been contentious since last year. Immediately following the Ríos Montt verdict, prominent representatives of the business community highlighted the importance of galvanizing around the election of the next attorney general. Late last year, two legal analysts for the country’s Supreme Court were fired after they issued an internal opinion confirming that the attorney general’s term should through the year.

Guatemala’s Bar Association, which plays a prominent role in the process of nominating judicial actors, also last year asked the legislature to seek a constitutional ruling on the length of the Attorney General’s term. The country’s congress did not do so, but in statements as recent as this week, congressional leaders did not rule out the option.

In Paz y Paz’ first three years in office, the number of reported crimes that went unprosecuted dropped from 95% to 70% in one of the deadliest countries in the world, with an increase in the number of prosecutions for homicide and organized crime, and a higher conviction rate.

Under her watch, the Public Ministry worked with the UN supported International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) to create “high risk courts” composed of vetted judges who have some protections and specialized resources; specialized units of prosecutors to handle complex or politically challenging cases; and streamlined management and oversight of prosecutions. These reforms ultimately allowed the groundbreaking Ríos Montt genocide conviction, a conviction that the Constitutional Court subsequently annulled in a divisive, and divided, decision.

The shortening of Paz y Paz’ term would limit the ability of the Public Ministry to institutionalize important reforms. Further, it would raise questions about the independence of the nominating process for both Paz y Paz as well as for other key judicial actors in a year in which Guatemala is also slated to select new judges for the country’s highest courts.

Jose Miguel Vivanco, Americas Director for Human Rights Watch, said yesterday from Guatemala that the court’s decision “creates the perception of undermining the independence and credibility” of the Public Ministry.

In an interview with El Periodico today, Claudia Paz y Paz said: “Those who have been affected by the advancement of justice [in Guatemala] are in a hurry for me to leave office.”

]]>Guatemala Justice Update, January 2014https://www.ijmonitor.org/2014/01/guatemala-justice-update-january-2014/
Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:46:50 +0000http://www.ijmonitor.org/?p=8131When trial judges in Guatemala convicted their own former head of state, Efrain Rios Montt, of genocide last May—a worldwide first—the rule of law set down roots in a country renowned for impunity. Subsequent events have shown how fragile those roots are.

Only days after the dictator’s conviction for his role in massacres of the indigenous Ixil during the country’s internal armed conflict, the Constitutional Court, in a divided and controversial judgment, annulled the ruling, forcing the disqualification of the trial court and upending the judicial process. Adding further confusion, in an October ruling, the Constitutional Court did not foreclose the possibility that a decades-old amnesty law could prevent the prosecution altogether, despite clear domestic and international prohibitions against the application of such an amnesty. A new trial date has been set far into the future—January 2015—and is facing renewed obstacles, due to an appeals court judgment last week.

The turbulent maneuvering related to the Ríos Montt trial happens against a backdrop of a year of transformation in the justice sector: In 2014, Guatemala selects a new slate of Supreme Court and appellate court judges and decides who will serve as Attorney General for the next five years. In the aftermath of the monumental genocide trial, these critical selection processes are already showing signs of politicization, including efforts to truncate the term of Guatemala’s pioneering attorney general, Claudia Paz y Paz.

Rios Montt Trial: A Renewed Legal Challenge

Legal and political challenges from the first days of this year present grave threats for Guatemala’s transitional justice processes.

Last week, an appellate court intervened to cause further waves in the prosecution of former Guatemalan military head of state, Efraín Ríos Montt. On January 10, the First Chamber Court of Appeals (Sala Primera de la Corte de Apelaciones) affirmed a controversial decision emitted by Judge Carol Flores, a pre-trial judge, who intervened on April 18, 2013, in the final stages of the trial, in what was then an unsuccessful effort to prevent its conclusion.

In her April decision, Judge Flores ruled that the judicial process must retreat to November 2011—before the indictment of Ríos Montt, to a time when he was a sitting congressman. She based her ruling on her improper disqualification as a pre-trial judge overseeing the case in November 2011. She ruled that the trial must return to the date of her disqualification and begin again. At the time, this decision was one factor leading to a temporary suspension in the trial. However, soon after, the Constitutional Court rejected Flores’ ruling, and sent the issue back to the lower court for review; the trial then concluded with Ríos Montt’s conviction.

The prosecutor and the civil party (CALDH) filed a legal challenge to the Flores ruling. The appellate court rejected the appeal filed by the civil parties in the case, effectively upholding the decision of Judge Flores. The appeals court apparently issued its decision September 2013, but only publicly announced it, and notified it to the parties, on January 10, 2014, opening this issue yet again.

One day after the appellate court’s judgment, the Ixil victims filed an appeal to the Constitutional Court. In its appeal, the victims assert that the appellate court ruling “supports an illegal action which obliterates not only the interests of the parties but also those of the Guatemalan justice system” as “the system ceases to pursue justice, focusing instead only on procedural matters.” (“…avala una ilegalidad que lacera no solo los intereses de esta representacion sino al sistema de justicia guatemalteco” … “el sistema deja de perseguir la justicia centrandose unicamente en la materia procesal.”)

At the same time, Guatemala is facing crucial decisions which will shape the country’s justice institutions in the years ahead. In 2014, Guatemala selects an Attorney General and a new slate of Supreme Court and appeals court judges.

Commissions to nominate candidates for Guatemala’s supreme and appellate courts are being selected, and are supposed to be tamper-resistant. Commissions are comprised of deans of law schools, representatives of the country’s law association, and judges. Congress will have to choose from the commissions’ judicial nominees in the coming months. This year, a commission will also be convened to determine a short list of candidates for attorney general which will be sent to the president for final determination.

The guilty verdict in the Rios Montt trial last year, and subsequent obstacles in the case, have generated added interest, and risk of political interference, in the judicial nomination process. There are already signs of potential improper influence in the process, and of efforts to undo some of the important justice sector reforms of the past five years.

New law schools have been formed primarily to participate in and influence the nomination process. Some of these law schools exist only on paper, with their role to appoint “deans” whose sole purpose is to be part of the nominating commissions and vote on judge and attorney general nominations.

Further, though the current term of Guatemala’s Attorney General, Claudia Paz y Paz, is due to end in December 2014, there have already been efforts to truncate it earlier—in May 2014.

Paz y Paz was appointed to head the Public Ministry in December 2010, after the Constitutional Court forced the disqualification of the lawyer previously appointed to serve that role. Paz y Paz has explained that she was appointed in December 2010 for a period of four years, and her term should thus appropriately end in December 2014.

The Public Ministry and CICIG worked on such institutional reforms as the creation of “high risk courts” composed of vetted judges who have some protections and specialized resources; specialized units of prosecutors to handle complex or politically challenging cases; and streamlined management and oversight of prosecutions. These reforms ultimately allowed the groundbreaking Rios Montt genocide conviction.

The shortening of Paz y Paz’ term would demonstrate the politicization of the rule of law in Guatemala, further discouraging other candidates with integrity from considering these posts. It would also limit the ability of the Public Ministry to institutionalize important reforms.

This year is a crucial one for the independence of the justice sector in Guatemala. Challenges are already evident.

]]>Summary of trial and excerpts of judgment availablehttps://www.ijmonitor.org/2013/11/summary-of-trial-and-excerpts-of-judgment-available/
Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:38:40 +0000http://www.riosmontt-trial.org/?p=710The Open Society Justice Initiative has just published a summary of the six week trial of Efrain Rios Montt based on the daily monitoring reports from this website.

The 56-page book, Judging a Dictator: The Trial of Guatemala’s Rios Montt, also includes an English translation of excerpts from the 718-page judgment against Rios Montt (specifically Section III of the judgment, covering the facts regarded by the court as proven (pages 103-45) and Section V, covering the charges proven against Rios Montt (pages 682-703).

Also available on the Open Society site is a fuller English translation of key sections of the judgment, and a translated text of the constitutional court ruling that led to the cancellation of the guilty verdict against Rios Montt, including the two dissenting opinions.